Quick Links

Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA

The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.

Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.

Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

So when CAN you call someone a racist?

This one has been bugging me for a while. The latest case example seems to come from Ron Paul.

It seems that post OJ-trial, people have been quick to accuse others of playing "the race card" whenever they try to bring up the fact that, yes, racism really does still occur in this country. Basically, all you need to do to avoid being called a racist is to insist that you aren't one. The phrase, "I'm not a racist, but _______" is supposed to magically excuse any comment that follows, no matter how racist it may be. Ron Paul, Don Imus, Michael Richards, etc., will all claim that they aren't racist, regardless of what they actually say.

In the Ron Paul example, you have a history of him saying blatantly racist things, like insisting that only 5% of black people have "sensible" politics (re: extreme libertarian politics), and that the other 95% are criminals. And then you have a libertarian supporters who are wiling to excuse this, because it seems "out of character" for him, and because they don't usually see him come off as very racist in normal circumstance. Which simply begs the question: How does an racist person come accross in normal circumstances, especially considering that most racism isn't overt, and overt racism is highly unpopular? Even the KKK can come accross as being non-racist if you interview them at the right time of day. It seems like basically what people are saying is, "Yes, he might have said something racist back then. But I've never seen him personally lynch black people or light any crosses on fire, so he doesn't strike me as a racist person."

I also dealt with another libertarian physics major recently who claimed that there was actually no such thing as discrimination against black people in America these days, and that any gaps and social standing was the result of the fact that white people simply had more evolved brain capacity. Not surprisingly, this person took great offense when I accused him of being racist. After all, it's not like he hated black people for being black. That would be racist! He just thought that black people were genetically inferior and therefore less likely to be qualified for work. What's so racist about that?

My thoughts are that racism is still a problem in this country, to the extent that it can be measured with emprical data. But people are too quick to find excuses to deny it. I can post a study showing that white people who served in prison for selling cocaine had a better chance of finding a job than black people with similar resumes but no criminal record, and the response I get is, "Gee, maybe the employer went to the same school as the white kid, or disliked the school the black kid went to." I post studies from linguistic experts showing that "black" sounding voices are told that there are no apartments available and "white" sounding voices get responses from the same landlord immeadiately, even when identical grammar is used, and the response I get is that it must be some oversight. Basically, anything to skid around the most obvious answer of, "Well, maybe it really is because the guy is black." Moreover, when you try to point out that such discrimination happens, the conservative response always seems to be, "Well gee, you're the REAL racist, for insisting that black people need an extra hand in order to compete." Which I never understood at all.

Does this bother anyone else? It seems that (mostly white) conservatives have tried to take the control of the term racism, in order to further an agenda that hurts minorities, rather than helping them. For instance, Ron Paul tries to the left by saying that "Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist." In other words, by allowing black people to have their own sense of culture, you are being a racist. The non-racists should uphold the status quo culture, which just so happens to predominantly benefit WASPs. How convenient.

You make it sound like calling people racsits is hard. Really msot people are petified of saying anything that could remotely be construed as racist in nature.

Not really, and especially not in "conservative" circles. There calling somebody a racist is often looked at as being worse that actually being a racist. Even breaking out the R-word is sure to get you branded as a PC Liberal Commie Idiot, or some such.

Actually, now that I think of it in "conservative" circles "politically correct" is their version of "racist"...an accusation so grave that you're unlikely to be taken seriously after receiving it. And calling somebody a racist is pretty much the easist way to invite such an accusation.

Actually, now that I think of it in "conservative" circles "politically correct" is their version of "racist"...an accusation so grave that you're unlikely to be taken seriously after receiving it. And calling somebody a racist is pretty much the easist way to invite such an accusation.

Pretty much. And not just in conservative circles either, since no one wants to be labeled "politically correct." (For the record, when was the last time you even SAW someone push political correctness?).

Like I said, it seems to be post-OJ burnout. As a result of the OJ trial, people tend to exagerrate the types of actions that will get you accused of being a racist, and are therefore quick to dismiss the label in all but the most extreme cases.

Main Entry: rac·ism
Pronunciation: 'rA-"si-z&m also -"shi-
Function: noun
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

So you can tell him that yes, by definition he is a racist.

Also, I would further point out that he is making a gross generalization regarding intelligance and that even if it were true that blacks are less intelligent than whites (which it isn't) there still exist very stupid white people and very smart black people and the generalization provides absolutely no useful information whatsoever for dealing with individual people. That is to say that even if the average IQ of blacks was lower than whites (don't anybody bother citing "The Bell Curve" here, that POS has been thoughouly debunked for flawed methodology years ago) the person sitting across from you still might have an IQ of 200, or 130, or whatever, as even in the wildest estimates the varience within a population HUGELY trumps the varience between populations.

ALocksly on May 2007

Yes,... yes, I agree. It's totally unfair that sober you gets into trouble for things that drunk you did.

Unfortunately, for most people, the implications of superiority is more implied than overt. e.g., if you acknowledge that there's a measurable discrepency between white people and black people in this country, which is backed up by studies, and you deny that it's the result of discrimination, which many people do, then you have to wonder what causes the discrepency. And if it's not the environment, then it must be something inherent within the person, and therefore within the group.

Similarily, if you want to argue that "Well, it's okay to engage in racial profiling, because black people are more likely to commit crimes than white people!", then you're implying a sort of moral superiority. And as you said, even if this applies to the group, it doesn't really apply to the individual.

Two young high-school graduates with similar job histories and demeanors apply in person for jobs as waiters, warehousemen or other low-skilled positions advertised in a Milwaukee newspaper. One man is white and admits to having served 18 months in prison for possession of cocaine with intent to sell. The other is black and hasn't any criminal record.

Which man is more likely to get called back?

It is surprisingly close. In a carefully crafted experiment in which college students posing as job applicants visited 350 employers, the white ex-con was called back 17% of the time and the crime-free black applicant 14%. The disadvantage carried by a young black man applying for a job as a dishwasher or a driver is equivalent to forcing a white man to carry an 18-month prison record on his back.

See, studies like that show why it is, for all intents and purposes, impossible to do a controlled intelligece study where race is the ONLY variable,

short of raising several thousand babies (gotta have a good sample size) of various races in isolated seclusion for eighteen years or so.

The real tragedy is the fact that while it's blatantly obvious that racism took place, it's next to impossible to identify the actual victims. e.g., 20% of black applicants would have gotten a response (but didn't) if they were white. Unfortunately, you can't really say which 20% it was. So that none of the victims can even realize that they were victims. If they cried "racism" in this situation, chances are that they would be swiftly dismissed for "playing the race card."

Psychologically, this could also perpetuate a feeling of learned helplessness. e.g., black people feel that there's nothing they can do to increase their social standing due to factors beyond their control, give up, and therefore widen the gap further. Or as I call it, "Stop getting so uppity, and learn your goddamned place!"

"Strangely", the reverse of this trend seems to be met with far more acceptance, from white people who are absolutely certain that they would be getting college admissions and scholarship if it weren't for affirmative action, even though the college acceptence rate would only go up by a measely .5% if AA was removed (From 23.8 to 24.3).

The most upsetting thing to me is that assclowns like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton get away with their bias', but then are seemingly invulnerable to counterattack due to their race.

You're right, that's much worse than people being unable to get jobs or rent rooms.

WHAT WERE WE THINKING

Some notes:

1) Please define what is meant by "get away with." I'm sure that in the olden days they might have been taken out back and lynched for their words, but that's not how we play things today.

3) Please define their "bias." Where is the line between having an opinion, and having a "bias."

3) If black people enslaved white people and ran the country for 200 years, I doubt anyone would care about having the white equivalent of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton in churches and on the radio. Hell, we already have guys like Bill O Reilly and Rush Limbaugh right now. And it's not like Al Sharpton has started a fourth tier law school that now accounts for 10% of the white house administration, including the Director of Public Affairs for the United States Department of Justice.